Find a Lawyer

MESSRS AMMARIAN INDUSTRY (AOP) versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Sections 170, 164 and 168 of the Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI 1979), Sections 96 and 50 (4) (7E) and (7F) of the Income Tax Rules, 2002, R 49 of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000) , Section 2 (3) Regional Commissioner of Income Tax Invoices confirming the refund, expressed indifference unless it is confirmed by the DPC that the issue of refund will not be resolved. And the issue will also be presented in the way of final settlement when the Manager DPC / PRAL has been appointed Regional Commissioner of Income Tax Accreditation by various departments of the department under section 50 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. Confirmation of deductions Failure to cooperate with each other for the purpose of Q did not respond to a request to confirm payment. DPCs were required to file monthly and annual statements, as required by Section Holding Agent under section 164 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, despite the data contained on the computer records. Income Tax Rules, 2002 with RR 49, were properly monitored and information was circulated to various Commissioners / Taxation Officers, verification would not prevent the final settlement of the matter, non-cooperation through PRAL. It was clearly pointed out that the Regional Commissioner of Income Tax Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Central Board of Revenue instruct various companies to be responsible for maintaining the collection / direction records through the collection agents. Collaborate with each other to facilitate verification of deposit. Deduction at source; that the Commissioner shall ensure that the statement listed under Rule 49 of the Income Tax Rules 2002 family advocate from Havelian lawyer